Saturday, May 31, 2008

Let’s Talk to Osama!

So says the head of the Police Service of Northern Ireland. According to The Daily Mail :

Top police chief: ‘We must start negotiating with Al Qaeda’

Osama bin LadenA police chief was slapped down by the Government yesterday for suggesting Britain could open talks with Al Qaeda.

Sir Hugh Orde, head of the Police Service of Northern Ireland, said he knew of no terror campaign that had not ended with negotiation.

In other words: “We have been absolute idiots in our dealings with terrorists in the past. Why should we change our methods now?”

The article continues:
- - - - - - - - -
And he said his 30 years spent tackling the IRA had convinced him that security work and arrests were not enough to defeat terrorists.

But his suggestion was immediately dismissed by the Foreign Office.

A spokesman said: ‘It is inconceivable that Her Majesty’s Government would ever seek to reach a mutually acceptable accommodation with a terrorist organisation like Al Qaeda.’

I don’t agree. The present dhimmitude of Her Majesty’s government indicates that such behavior is more than likely at some point. Sir Hugh has just been a bit — ahem — premature in his statements.

Jonathan Powell, ex-chief of staff at Downing Street, also says the Ulster peace deal shows talking to terror groups can work.

He said negotiating with Al Qaeda might seem pointless now, but a political solution would be needed in the end.

The analogy between Al Qaeda and the IRA is a spurious one. The IRA, for all its brutal bestiality, had limited and well-defined political goals: sovereignty over Northern Ireland. It had no aspirations to expand the Irish Ummah and rule the entire world in its name. However detestable it was, its worldview was not eschatological and messianic, nor grounded in a megalomaniacal “holy book”.

The IRA was, and remains, containable for the British government. Al Qaeda is not.

Sir Hugh, a leading contender to take over from Sir Ian Blair as chief of the Metropolitan Police, said: ‘If you want my professional assessment of any terrorism campaign, what fixes it is talking and engaging and judging when the conditions are right for that to take place.’

Asked if he was saying we should talk to Al Qaeda, Sir Hugh said: ‘I don’t think that’s unthinkable, the question will be one of timing.’

He also called for the number of police forces to be slashed from 43 to nine to better fight terrorism.

This last point is an interesting one. Is he calling for the consolidation of existing police forces, to make them more like regional Gestapos than the community-based “bobbies on bicycles” of the past?

If so, it should make it easier to crack down on “racist” speech as well.


Chuck Pelto said...

TO: Der Baron
RE: The Irish? Again??!?!?!

"So says the head of the Police Service of Northern Ireland. According to The Daily Mail :

Top police chief: ‘We must start negotiating with Al Qaeda’" -- Baron Bodissey

This guy is going to have a SERIOUS problem, deciding between the English and the Muslims.

I can understand his hatred of the English. But WHAT on God's Green Earth makes him believe the Muslims, as espoused by Al Qaeda, would be any different....if not WORSE?

At least the English are 'christian'....for the time being.



Zenster said...

Jonathan Powell, ex-chief of staff at Downing Street, also says the Ulster peace deal shows talking to terror groups can work.

He said negotiating with Al Qaeda might seem pointless now, but a political solution would be needed in the end.

So, which of Islam’s pillars does this monster raving loon suggest we “negotiate” about?

Shahada: profession of faith.

You know, the one where all Muslims swear eternal obedience and submission to Allah. Submission so permanent that any apostasy can meet with a death sentence. Sure thing, I think all of us can see that Islam is so secure in its teachings that it no longer needs to worry about any adherents converting away to other faiths.

Salat: five daily prayers.

We all know that Islam is so modern that it no longer needs to have that pesky muezzin yodeling from the rooftops before dawn. With less praying to do, I’m sure that they’d have no problem slowing down the rate at which they build their mosques. Especially now, given that Islam is so well established in the West.

Zakat: almsgiving.

With billions of dollars in oil money propelling Islam’s juggernaut, who needs all that untraced cash flow anymore? Hell, sponsorship of terrorism has become so overt these days, it’s not as if they still need surreptitious funding anymore. After all, that old-fashioned hawala system no longer meets current banking standards for monetary transactions. I’m sure they’d like to get rid of that financial horse and buggy, aren’t you?

Sawm: ritual fasting.

Be sure that the vast majority of Muslims would like to forego this annoying bit of traditional self-abuse. It would make Islam’s most holy celebration, Ramadan, a lot more enjoyable. No more of that nasty bingeing and fasting for a month.

Hajj: pilgrimage.

Talk about the commute from Hell, what wouldn’t Muslims give to be rid of this nasty little obligation? Herded around in a cattlecar environment, lost luggage, getting trampled to death when somebody accidentally farts sideways. All of it in the bucolic splendor of one of this world’s worst deserts. You’d think they’d want to give this up first!

Jihad: proseltyzing.

Often referred to as Islam’s extra pillar, this bit of nastiness has definitely taken on a perverse life of its own. What wouldn’t Muslims give so they could finally be rid of their religious obligation to strap on those bomb vests and go out with a bang? Not the best retirement plan in the world, now is it?

Shari’a: Islamic jurisprudence.

That wonderful aggregation of laws which regulates every waking minute of a Muslim’s daily life, right down to when he can beat his wife or the amount of excrement he’s allowed to leave in place after wiping his posterior. Goodness knows that Muslims all over the world are just itching to get out from under this burdensome and overbearing rigmarole.

So, Jonathan Powell, which one of the above pillars shall you negotiate about? After all, it is the above set of practices that are putting Islam at odds with the West.

I suggest that Mr. Powell head directly to Saudi Arabia so he can go before a large assemblage of Muslims and suggest that they give up even a single one of the foregoing aspects of daily Muslim life. It’s a reasonably safe bet that this stupid git would no longer be quite so enthusiastic about negotiating over Islam’s central tenets. That is, if he were not slowly torn limb from limb moments after shutting his yapping Infidel mouth.

The foregoing pillars of Islam are essentially non-negotiable. Very few Muslims on earth would consider—for even a moment—any modification to them. Excision of any single one would render Islam utterly alien to its current self. As a group, they form a self-contained and positive feedback loop that entrenches Islam almost irrevocably. This is what makes the idea of negotiating with Muslims such a preposterous and fatally stupid venture.

Now, factor into this equation the concept of taqiyya, the sanctioned use of lies in negotiating. Again, how is there supposed to be any sort of constructive outcome in taking the field against an opponent that openly avows to play by their own rules but stridently insists that you must follow the book of regulations to its last letter and dot?

With their folly, people like Mr. Jonathan Powell rapidly are going well beyond stupidity and into the realm of posing a danger to the rational bulk of society. He perpetuates an already disproven notion that there can be any negotiating with those whose entire agenda is completely non-negotiable. This sort of surreal cultural relativism fulfills nearly every qualification as one of Josef Stalin’s “useful idiots”.

There will be no negotiating with Islam. At least, not in earnest. Not ever. If there is one lesson that the West must carry away from the Israeli-Palestinian conflict it is this. Nowhere has Islam given any indication that it is ready to act in good faith and become a fair player on the world stage. Moreover, by delegating itself the right to commit the ultimate ethical crime of taqiyya, Islam permanently disqualifies all non-violent methods of conflict resolution. Additionally, all previous evidence shows that Islam will constantly resort to violence whenever opportunity permits.

The historical record contains no instances of long term peaceful coexistence between Islam and any other culture once Muslims became a majority. All of this points towards the total uselessness of negotiation-in-good-faith as a functional or successful tool of conflict resolution when dealing with Islam.

Most critical of all is to remember that none of this arises out of any fault or shortcomings of the West. Islam specifically structures all dealings with it in a no-win format. Thusly, we are confronted with a very binary choice. Either we submit to Islam’s withering embrace or confront it with force of arms that permanently cripples its ability to be an ongoing threat.

This is why political Islam no longer has any place in the civilized world. It is a failed ideology whose propulsion is entirely dependent upon previously accumulated inertia and not any form of legitimate progress. Modern culture cannot possibly accommodate something so rapacious and deceitful in its midst while hoping to remain intact. Experimenting with any trial at coexistence with Islam is akin to attempting a safe introduction of the Ebola virus into ordinary living conditions. It cannot be done.

Avery Bullard said...

The reason the British government had to negotiate with the IRA was their unwillingness to defeat them. Most of the British political class and the press - especially the Left - were sympathetic to the cause of the IRA though not their methods. To make matters worse, in the USA, Britain's main ally, significant politicians, journalists, and not a few Americans themselves were broadly sympathetic to the IRA's main goal.

IRA rebellions prior to 1969 were easily snuffed out by the local security forces. However when the 'Troubles' began in 1969 the politicians in London deprived the Northern Ireland devolved government of the powers they had previously utilised to crush IRA terrorists. They sent in the British army not to fight terrorism but to keep the violence at an 'acceptable' level.

Lack of will to defeat terrorism in Northern Ireland followed by negotiations then rewards for IRA terrorists is now being touted as some kind of success! (Apparently they've forgotten the quarter century of shootings and bombings and the still existing organised crime networks set up by the paramilitaries).

Avery Bullard said...

Also many of the IRA men were given high positions in government. For example Martin McGuinness who ran the Londonderry wing of the IRA was appointed Minister of Education. The IRA's political wing Sinn Fein has always had ambitious plans in the south of Ireland (the part that's not a part of the UK). Their violence in the north hurt them in the south so they had an incentive to renounce the 'armed struggle'.

Can AQ be bought off in a similar way? I can't imagine it. But even if they could what would they want in return?

Debbie said...

Zenster, I love your posts.

Martin said...

I know it is off topic, but it could be interesting for You..

First of all I have to warn you that my English if far from perfection, anyway I think it is sufficient to provide some news :))..

In Czech rebublic has been again set up posters with caricature of Muhammad.....this time in Prague, one location is in outskirt, where is located the mosque, second rather in the center.

It has been covered by main Czech papers, but so far I have not seen any news in English.

Personally I have rather mixed feelings...muslim community in Czech republic seems more moderate than in other parts of Europe. And if moderate is not the correct word, they are certainly too clever to make too much fuss about it. They are still too few and what I know about our government policy concerning immigration, it certainly wont change in near future and perhaps even in middle term future Of course, lot of depends on what will happen in western Europe...

So it can lead to the situation that they will show "moral high ground" and use it against anti-islam activists.

But we will see...

Anyway here are the links:

What I have seen, coverage is quite neutral and as You can see, caricature is even used in the article.

The most complex news provides idnes:

In this case is even covered reaction of passers-by:

"Reactions of passers-by were inconsistent, from strong affect, anger and outrage to many people who stopped and read commentary, said mr. Ladislav who reported posters to Idnes

There is not much to add, just that posters contained advertisment on these pages:

Decatur said...

Thanks for your post.
The key words in it are 'They are still too few'.

Jungle Jim said...

Avery Bullard understands the IRA well. Journalists in the USA have misrepresented the troubles as being a war of 'liberation' when they were actually an attempt to install a marxist dictatorship in Ireland. The voters of the Republic of Ireland have rejected Sinn Fein/IRA decisively.

I respectfully disagree with Baron when he says 'However detestable it was, its worldview was not eschatological and messianic, nor grounded in a megalomaniacal “holy book”'. The IRA's megalomaniacal holy books are the communist manifesto and Das Kapital.

Jungle Jim said...

I asked my friend in Northern Ireland about Hugh Orde. Here is what she had to say:

"He is an Englishman sent over a few years ago to run the Ulster police at the behest of Sinn Fein.
He is a prat, he is a political appointment to carry out Labours wishes."